The President and the Pope: "Is Obama Driving Wedge Between Catholics & Benedict XVI?" (Newsweek)

When he meets Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican on July 10, President Barack Obama will find himself ^ | George Weigel

[presidio9]

When he meets Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican on July 10, President Barack Obama will find himself in conversation with a man who is, at heart, a teacher. Which raises the question: what lessons might Professor Ratzinger be interested in proposing to President Obama?

The first—and obvious—lesson has to do with what the Roman Catholic Church regards as the premier civil-rights issues of the moment: the life issues, including abortion, euthanasia, and embryo-destructive stem-cell research. Ever since the Saddleback Church debate during the 2008 campaign, Obama has steadfastly declined to address the moral argument at the heart of the Catholic Church's teaching on the life issues, preferring instead to speak of different "beliefs" or different "views" on these deeply controverted questions. The professor-pope, who knows this, may gently remind his guest that what is at stake here is not a matter of taste or opinion, but a first principle of justice that can be known by reason: innocent human life is inviolable and must be afforded the protection of the law. That principle, Benedict XVI may continue, is not some peculiarly Catholic notion. Rather, it an argument that can be engaged by any serious person, irrespective of his or her theological convictions (or lack thereof). And grasping it is essential to securing the moral foundations of democracy—a point Benedict underscores in his new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate [Charity in Truth].

Should the president reply (as both his May commencement address at Notre Dame and his July 2 interview with religion reporters suggest he might) that people of good will ought to be able to find "common ground" on reducing the incidence of abortion and providing more effective aid for women in crisis pregnancies,

[Servant of the Cross]

SUBSIDIARITY for those playing at home.

p.s. sorry for the poor cut & paste and redundant link at #18. Here's one from Father Fessio.

[Nosterrex]

I personally like the former Cardinal Ratzinger, and he is a profound scholar. I have read some of his writings and his speeches. It always goes to the question of authority. The Church of Rome believes that is a worldly power and has the authority to tell governments what to do. It has often taken positions contrary to the United States, such as the Iraq War and illegal immigration. If the Pope wants to “guide” his flock, that is fine with me; however, he has no authority beyond this own flock. It is a mistake for any American president to meet with the Pope.

[Albion Wilde]

Obama... cit[ed] the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago as a role model who had taught ...that ...the good Catholics...sought to work with all people of good will in advancing mutual goals, especially service to the poor. What the president did not say at Notre Dame or to the reporters is that, despite Bernardin's strong personal commitment to the pro-life cause, his "common ground" approach to public policy and his "consistent ethic of life" (or "seamless garment") linkage of abortion, capital punishment, and nuclear disarmament served to permit an entire generation of Catholic politicians (including Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi) to take a pass on abortion by claiming that they were, after all, batting .667 on the consistent ethic of life.

I'd say they were batting .666.

[JaneNC]

How can that be?

Obama is the BIGGEST supporter of abortion I know of...and the pope is against it.

[presidio9]

While I'm sure the Pope appreciates the fact that you "personally like" him, you still seem to be making the same mistake that a lot of people make here: You are confusing the Pope's spiritual mission with that of a political leader. The Pope has every right to tell anybody he pleases what to do, just as you have the right to tell the Pope what to do. Even when you're wrong. As I said, however, the Pope is a spiritual leader for the most part, so he has no way to enforce his directives. To be consistent, he doesn't even have the power to ensure someone like you understands his positions. For example, you are obviously confused about John Paul II's position on the Iraq War, which was, in turn consistent with Christ's teachings. You make that common mistake, again, because you are confused about where the Pope is coming from (saving souls vs. politics).

Some American Presidents, like Obama and Clinton, meet with Popes for tawdry political reasons: Catholicism is the largest political denomination in the US. Others, like Reagan and both Bushes met with Popes because they understood the similarities the the spiritual message being delivered to that of their own Protestant beliefs. All three of these men admitted that the got a lot out of those meetings. You seem to already understand that you don't get to be Pope without being an exceptionally holy man.

And, BTW, there is no "Church of Rome." Rome is a secular city. The Catholic Church is headquarted in Vatican City. The KKK and other anti-Catholic orginizations were fond of referring to the Catholic Church as "Rome," for its connotations to paganism. So you might want to avoid using that term when you are criticizing the Pope.

[JaneNC]

First of all , consider the source. NEWSWEEK.
It is a liberal slant and always off.

[presidio9]

Agreed, but I was responding to the specific opinion that the Pope should mind their own business, and US Presidents should never meet with Popes.

[Nosterrex]

First of all, the pope is referred to as the Bishop of Rome, I've never heard him referred to as the Bishop of the Vatican. If history has told us anything, you don't have to be holy to be a pope. There were many immoral and scandalous popes. I suspect more than a few of them are in hell as we speak. If you had enough money, you could buy any office you wanted to in the Roman Church, including the papacy. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
The popes today are not like the ones in the past, thank God! When the popes did command armies, they certainly didn't hesitate to use them. One only needs to remember the Thirty years war and the Crusades (Deus Vult). The Roman Church only hesitates to use force when they don't have it.
If the Roman Church actually cared about souls, it might try preaching the Gospel and be a truly spiritual church.
I purposely call it the Roman Church or Church of Rome, because I do not consider it a catholic church.

[presidio9]

First of all, the pope is referred to as the Bishop of Rome, I've never heard him referred to as the Bishop of the Vatican. If history has told us anything, you don't have to be holy to be a pope. There were many immoral and scandalous popes. I suspect more than a few of them are in hell as we speak. If you had enough money, you could buy any office you wanted to in the Roman Church, including the papacy. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The popes today are not like the ones in the past, thank God! When the popes did command armies, they certainly didn't hesitate to use them. One only needs to remember the Thirty years war and the Crusades (Deus Vult). The Roman Church only hesitates to use force when they don't have it. If the Roman Church actually cared about souls, it might try preaching the Gospel and be a truly spiritual church. I purposely call it the Roman Church or Church of Rome, because I do not consider it a catholic church.

Like a lot of people I come across who can't think of anything smart to say, you chose to address the throw-away advice at the end of my post to you. I had a lot to say, and I put a lot of thought into it. Since you are ignoring it, I will assume that you understand how wrong you were about the rest, and address the incorrect thinking that I did get from you:

I know that this is hard for you to understand, but the Vatican is a sovereign state. It is not part of the City of Rome any more than British Hong Kong was part of the People's Republic of China. Was there ever a time when an intelligent person referred to the opinions of Communist China being the same as those of Capitalist Hong Kong? Of course not, it sounds stupid even suggesting such a thing. You are correct, that the Pope IS the "Bishop of Rome." He is the direct successor to Saint Peter, in who's chair he sits. He is also the head of the Roman Catholic Church, which is the more important office, but, again, the Church needs an office. And that office is in the Vatican, not Rome. We went over all of this in my earlier post: People who have problems with Catholics (the KKK, you, etc.) refer to "Rome" because they like the comparison to paganism. No need to go over that, because you outed yourself with the rest of your post. To wit:

You spoke about immoral and scandalous popes (presumably from centuries ago). Then you suggested that the Papacy was for sale to the highest bidder (Dan Brown, is that you?). Then you began to ramble and attempted to clarify by pointing out that things aren't like that today thank God! So what was your point in bringing it up? So you could talk about the Crusades? Not sure any of this is relevant Nosty.

All of this led to your real gripe, which I'll repeat: "If the Roman Church actually cared about souls, it might try preaching the Gospel and be a truly spiritual church."

And if you had any knowledge of the modern Catholic Church you might make a credible point. I, on the other hand, know my Church quite well. Its only business is preaching the Gospel and saving souls. And I can point you to dozens of respected non-Catholics who would be happy to back me up on this. Why don't you take some time to come up with a basis for your ignorant accusation, and then get back to me.

You finished by saying that you don't consider the Roman Catholic Church to be a catholic church (of any sort). My response is, of course, that it is the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, because that's what I and a billion other people believe. In other words, most of the people on this planet who care about such things completely disagree with you. So instead of simply stating your own unpopular opinion you should provide the basis of your opinion (hint: they don't preach the Gospel is provably false).

[Nosterrex]

You have a very selective view of the papacy. When the historical facts don't support your view of the Roman Church, you simply ignore it or say that it doesn't apply to the papists today. So your view is that the modern Roman Church is somehow different from the one that existed in the past. They destroys any meaning of the term catholic. In fact the Roman church seems to change its doctrines and practices all the time. No US president should be meeting with the pope for any reason, especially if the president isn't a papist, but that is a small point. In years past, no US president would be caught dead visiting the Vatican.

So that you know that my views are not just mine, they are certainly not new. Despite the window dressing of the papacy nothing has changed. Every Lutheran pastor and every member of the Lutheran church, throughout the world and for over five hundred years subscribes to the Lutheran Confessions which states: “It is clear that the Roman pontiffs, with their followers, defend godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks of the Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the pope and his followers.”
That just about sums it up.

[presidio9]

You have a very selective view of the papacy. When the historical facts don't support your view of the Roman Church, you simply ignore it or say that it doesn't apply to the papists today. So your view is that the modern Roman Church is somehow different from the one that existed in the past. They destroys any meaning of the term catholic. In fact the Roman church seems to change its doctrines and practices all the time. No US president should be meeting with the pope for any reason, especially if the president isn't a papist, but that is a small point. In years past, no US president would be caught dead visiting the Vatican.

I am pressed for time at the moment, as I was yesterday. I was a little annoyed with myself for not breaking down the fatuity of your comments related to these. Your point was and continues to be that the Roman Catholic Church is neither Catholic nor Holy due to events that took place in the distant past, specifically the Crusades and the 30 Years War. For some reason, you chose to leave out the other time honored favorites, the Inquisition and the so-called selling of indulgences, but I will avoid speculating on your intentions. Shall we explore the Crusades? A lot of bad things happened during the Crusades, but liberal historians have left 100% of the blame with Catholicism. In fact, the Crusades were Christiany's (and let's not forget that the Catholic Church WAS Christianity at the time) response to the Koran's dictate that it spread itself by the sword. Before the Holy Lands were filled with "Palestinians," they were populated by Christian kingdoms. The Muslims invaded and forcibly converted much of the Christian and Jewish Population. The Muslims were also advancing and occupying other Christian lands at the time. The goal, which continues today was to forcibly convert the planet in anticipation of the 13th Imam or some other such nonsense. It continues today, and the Muslim word has sworn an oath to their false god to persevere until a crescent sits on the dome of St. Peter's. Many atrocities were committed during the Crusades. Perhaps the majority were committed on the part of the Christians. The point is that they were a good idea. The world would certainly be a better place today if they had been seen through to their inevitable conclusion. I went to the top-ranked Jesuit college in the country. Our sports teams were nicknamed the Crusaders. After 9/11, some liberal wrote an Op-Ed piece in the LA Times demanding that my school pick a new mascot. The president of the school, a Jesuit, politely told him why he was an idiot. If I can find that article, I link it for you. The point is that Christians have no business felling any remorse for the crusades, except for the fact that we ultimately lost. I will make my last two points separately, because they are more important than the one I just made. To repeat: They are the ones you should address first, if you are planning to respond to this post.

Fist, the Crusades took place hundreds of years before the Reformation. As I said earlier, the Catholic Church WAS Christianity at the time. Unless your particular denomination of Protestantism broke away before the Crusades or at the time of the Crusades (because of them), your own faith owns them just as much as mine does. Of course, you should be proud of that fact, the Crusades weren't all bad after all. But you have no license to be pointing fingers at others for something your own faith participated in.

Second, this business bringing up examples from hundreds of years in the past is a conjectural dead-end. First, as we said, because your own faith is complicit if it was undeniable but failed to step forward to combat the practices you find fault with now. Second, because it denies the obvious fact that institutions and organizations do evolve over time. If you follow the witless point that you are trying to make to its obvious conclusion, then the United States would have no moral standing today, due to its history with slavery. Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, and Spike Lee do just that. I'm sure you admire their reasoning, if not the actual message.

Finally (because this is all I have time for a the moment), the idea that no US president met with the Pope in the past is unbelievably ignorant. The fact that I have to explain this to you makes me think you are deliberately wasting my time. Before the mid 20th century, there was little possibility of a Pope meeting a president. Popes didn't come here before dependable transatlantic flight. Plus, Catholicism did not become the majority faith in this country until about that time. FDR didn't meet with any Puis XII that I know of, but there was a great deal of correspondence between the two. FDR also (not so) privately hated Catholics, and may have only run for his last term to keep a Catholic from becoming president. Truman also corresponded frequently with the Pope. Eisenhower definitely met with the Pope. Kennedy was what people like you call a "papist." LBJ greeted the Pope in NYC. Nixon met with the Pope. Carter is the only one modern president for whom I can't find a record of having had a papal audience. Reagan grew quite close to JPII. So did HW Bush. Let's hope for Clinton's sake that the Pope heard his confession when they met. W Bush had audiences with both JPII and Benedict XVI. Are you having the same problem here, where you think that what the diplomacy from 100 years ago applies to today? But to reiterate, the only President you seem to be in agreement with here is Carter. Enjoy the company.

And the only people who use the term "papist" ARE anti-Catholic bigots. Especially the KKK. Are you owning up to something? I've pretty much explained this to you a couple of times now. So now when you do it, it looks to any Catholic who reads this like you are going out of your way to attack us and intentionally insult us. You seem like an otherwise civil guy, so I am left scratching my head as to why you would act this way. Obviously, this is a very long response to only 2/3 or so of what you had to say. I'll try to get to the rest later.

[trisham]

Thanks for the ping. Well done!

[presidio9]

I guess I should use this new-fangled thing called “the internet,” rather than trusting my memory: Jimmy Carter did meet with John Paul II once, but in the White House, and only because the Pope came to Washington DC as part of his 1979 US tour.

[presidio9]

Where do these FReaks come from, and why won’t they get their own website? Oh wait, the moderators love and protect them. Why bother going anywhere else?

None of what I wrote is a matter of opinion or open to interpretation, and it gets a little boring after a while. Don’t you think?

[trisham]

None of what I wrote is a matter of opinion or open to interpretation, and it gets a little boring after a while. Don’t you think?

*******************

Yes, it makes one weary at times, which is why I have so much gratitude and respect for those who take the time and trouble to respond to those who continue to attack our Church.

Thank you for all you do, friend.